A judge dismissed Friday a challenge filed by the state of California in Orange County Superior Court to local laws requiring voters to present identification in Huntington Beach’s municipal elections.
The motion for dismissal granted by Judge Nathan Vu enables the city to move forward with a series of amendments to its city charter approved in March. Measure A passed with the support of 53% of voters and allows officials to ask people to present ID before casting a ballot in Huntington Beach’ municipal elections.
“This is a great day for our City,” Huntington Beach officials said in a statement Friday. “We have not only successfully defended our City’s Voter ID law, but also the rights of our residents from attacks by Governor [Gavin] Newsom and the State.”
Huntington Beach officials assert that, as a charter city, it has the authority to conduct and set policy surrounding municipal affairs like elections. They have accused lawmakers in Sacramento of bullying local governments and “tyranny.”
The dismissal of the state’s challenge to Measure A follows the election of a conservative-backed real estate agent as Huntington Beach’s chief election officer. Lisa Lane Barnes won 57.53% of the vote in the race for City Clerk and had been endorsed by the Republican Party of Orange County as well as right-leaning members of the City Council.
Lisa Lane Barnes was a member of Huntington Beach’s Community and Library Services Commission and won the race for Huntington Beach City Clerk.
(Courtesy of Lisa Lane Barnes)
Meanwhile, in written warnings and a complaint filed April 15, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta has claimed Huntington Beach’s voter ID measures conflict with state law and would ultimately suppress turnout “without providing any discernible local benefit.” His office filed suit, requesting that the court strike down the provisions of Measure A and affirm that “the Huntington Beach City Charter is preempted by and violates California Law.”
Then in October, Newsom signed Senate Bill 1174. It prohibits local election officials from requiring ID in elections, and was written in direct response to Measure A.
“The court’s decision does not address the merits of the case,” representatives from Bonta’s office told the Daily Pilot in an email Friday. “We continue to believe that Huntington Beach’s voter ID policy clearly conflicts with state law and will respond appropriately in court.”
Huntington Beach City Atty. Michael Gates applauded the dismissal of the suit in a statement. He also said “we anticipate this fight isn’t over.”
In an interview Friday, Gates said that SB 1174 was factored into Judge Vu’s decision to dismiss the case. Gates described it as a rebuke of the state’s law and “a black eye for the state of California.”
Supporters of Measure A, a recently passed charter amendment requiring ID to vote in Huntington Beach elections, clap as City Atty. Michael Gates announces plans to fight a state-filed lawsuit challenging the new rules during a news conference Thursday, April 18.
(Eric Licas)
The city has been at odds with lawmakers in Sacramento over numerous, seemingly ongoing flash points.
In September Huntington Beach sued Bonta, Newsom and state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond in response to Assembly Bill 1955. It prevents school officials from requiring teachers to reveal students’ sexual orientation or expressed gender identity to relatives.
The conservative-leaning majority of the City Council, including Mayor Gracey Van Der Mark, called the state law an “egregious piece of legislation” that “puts children at risk.” Members of the council’s minority and critics of Huntington Beach’s lawsuit noted that the city doesn’t have jurisdiction or standing to manage matters under the purview of school boards. Outgoing Councilwoman Rhonda Bolton said it was a “breach of the city’s fiduciary duty as stewards of the public’s money.”
Another lawsuit filed by Huntington Beach last year encountered a stumbling block in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last month. The city’s challenge of a state mandate requiring it to zone for over 13,000 additional units of housing was rejected by a panel of judges on Oct. 30. In a two-page decision, they found that “no matter how California categorizes charter cities, they remain subordinate political bodies, not sovereign entities.”
Gates said his office intends to sustain its fight against the state’s demand that the city plan for more housing, even if that means appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.